It’s been a tough few days for those allergic to babies. Prince William and Kate Middleton’s baby bumped nearly everything else off the news agenda, even the transfer window. Britain lost thousands of labour hours as its workforce wilted outside St Mary’s Hospital, desperate for a 45-second encounter with Prince George of Cambridge himself. Twitter nearly gave birth to its own royal fail whale. Stateside, according to the American media, Royal Baby Fever was reaching epidemic proportions; a former Express writer even claimed it was a bigger story in America than in Britain. But was it?

If you went by America’s tabloids, you would believe the entire country was salivating over ‘Princess Kate’ and ‘HRH The Queen’ just as they do ‘Kimye’ and Blue Ivy Carter. A provocative New York Times blog post would have you thinking these same people suffered from a sinister fairy-tale obsession and a serious lack of appropriate female role models. Judging by these media perspectives, the American people have a serious problem.

This disconnect often occurs as news organisations chase pageviews and compete around the clock. So it was likely in response to ABC News’ declining popularity, not country-wide opinion, that Nightline chose to spice things up by discussing the Royal family and ‘Hollywood Royalty’ in the same breath.

Despite what Nightline may want us to believe, Americans can tell Royals from entertainers. In a Facebook discussion on this topic, Telegraph reader Amanda Wade observed that “with the royals, service is part of their lives, whereas the celebrities here in the States are more concerned with their egos, naming their children after airlines and appearing before judges.”

Many expressed a fascination with the baby’s historical significance: “The British Royal family represent a continuing part of the history of Anglo civilization, for better or for worse,” said Anne Scott.

Lori Stuart was the lone voice in favour of the media feeding frenzy: “I am very happy to see the news dominated by this story...I’m tired of [bad news] being rehashed to death.” The majority did not take this view. According to Alexandra Jerome, “I think we were far more interested in the Royal Wedding than the Royal Bump, since the wedding was a one-off spectacle of fashion, celebs and pageantry...the major networks and tabloids tried to make Baby Cambridge into something massive, but they are certainly not representative of the opinions of the American people.”

Some simply could not be bothered: “Babies are a good thing, but many of us over here just aren’t that interested,” said Dustin Long. To Betty Rodriguez, the whole thing was downright cruel: “I don’t know of any women who like to have an extended conversation with a few thousand people, much less stand up smiling after childbirth...let the woman recover.”

On the whole, the Telegraph’s US readers did care about the Royal baby, but not disproportionately so. The stories that resonated with UK readers were the most popular among US readers as well. Perhaps this means Americans are just as shallow as their British counterparts? Or do I dare whisper it - perhaps average Americans, checking on the baby via Twitter but mostly getting on with their lives and leaving the frothing to their fussy broadcasters, showed more respect for the Royal family's value to society than their friends across the pond. How's that for a fairy tale ending?